The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

Post by ionised » Wed, Mar 16, 2016, 9:51 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #163

LastZactionHero wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recent issues over encryption has actually changed my thinking on guns. I'm not 'pro gun', don't own guns, and want nothing to do with them personally. But as I think about my stance on the legality of encryption it sounds pretty similar to the argument for guns. Still don't want one, but it's harder for me to be dismissive of a point when I turn around and use the same point for another issue.

Contrary to encryption you don't need guns to safely communicate over the Internet, say with your bank. So I'd argue that strong encryption is a lot more important than guns.

Post by niij » Wed, Mar 16, 2016, 6:08 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #200

niij wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for this. This guy is either a supporter of Nanny States or has a massive lack of understanding of basic U.S. constitutional law.

Or maybe he is asking a question.

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Mar 16, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #202

niij wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said nothing about it being ruled unconstitutional. I assume what parent is trying to say is that the restriction on their 2nd amendment rights (which is what this law is-- a restriction of a right) is, in many people's opinion, contrary to the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment. Now, there is a difference between restricting of a right and a ban of a right, but it becomes a very fine line.

There are already a large number of restrictions on the ownership of arms. Try to go and buy any true arms (military grade weapons) and see how far you get. The intended purpose of the second amendment was gutted long ago. My question is why have the anti-gun lobby not gone after ammunition. So far I have not had one good response answering this question.